Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Very interesting interview. Michaels exposes the lies in CAGW and points out that there really has been no warming other than in all the models that are running hot. Less than 1 degree C in the past 100 years is not only perfectly natural for the planet emerging from the Little Ice Age but is extremely small. None of this is due to increasing Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 increases follow warming, Do NOT cause it. The primary effect of increased CO2 has been increased productivity and a greener planet. This is a good thing! More food to feed people!

After a “close viewing”, the only place I posted this piece was in my “trash” folder. Here’s a better one to spread “everywhere you can”. It helps to explain why Levin, Michaels, and Roger and the Deniers (a good name for a rock band) have met with such success in confusing the issue, at least in America. The truth is that 97% OR MORE OF ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN AGW AND ARE GREATLY CONCERNED THAT IT IS LEADING TO CATASTROPHE—-Shout that from the rooftops, folks!

This is a “candid analysis” of the causes of global warming on “mainstream TV”? ROTFLMAO!

It is ignorant opinion from a RWNJ conspiracy theorist and his lying “guest” on a mainstream RWNJ TV channel (FAUX News). Thirty-nine plus minutes of propaganda filled with misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies about the science of global warming. What a waste of time (unless, of course, you are a low-IQ science-denying moron wearing a MAGA cap—in which case, take notes and BELIEVE!).

It is obvious from your hysterical comments, of which I have no intention to publish on my site, that you have not read or understood the background of the “papers” that the so called 97% is based upon.

Neither have you understood why the video is so interesting which is because for once, proper science principles are being used to expose the claims of this 97% you mention.

I suggest that the news media and the IPCC, especially the “Summary for Policy Holders” are not purveyors of the truth or good science.

So I apologise in suggesting you drop the “Dumb” from your name. As you make no effort to analyse the truth, maybe your name is appropriate.